brooklyn-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Svetoslav Neykov <svetoslav.ney...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
Subject Re: Call for release: Brooklyn 0.10.0
Date Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:47:26 GMT
> I am happy to do the release again this time, but it would probably be wise
> for somebody else to do it this time (with me providing whatever support is
> needed - pairing etc.)

I'd be happy to do the release with your help Richard.

Svet.


> On 16.11.2016 г., at 16:43, Richard Downer <richard@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> On 16 November 2016 at 11:22, Aled Sage <aled.sage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> It's far past time that we did a Brooklyn 0.10.0 release! I suggest we aim
>> for that soon.
>> 
> 
> Definitely agree - our last release was in April, so about seven months
> ago. We certainly wouldn't want to wait any longer. It's not a ridiculous
> length of time, but it "feels" like Brooklyn has moved on a lot during that
> time, so there will be a lot in a new release.
> 
> 
>> Richard, are our release process docs up-to-date at [1]?
>> [1] http://brooklyn.apache.org/developers/committers/
>> release-process/index.html
>> 
> 
> They are up-to-date on source control, but the website hasn't been
> republished. (Attention committers: if you merge a PR that changes the
> website, please also update the website!)
> 
> However they have only been used once since graduation, so there are
> probably still areas for improvement. We'd also need to consider if the
> last 6-7 months have caused a need for the release process to change (e.g.
> adding `.deb` artifacts).
> 
> I am happy to do the release again this time, but it would probably be wise
> for somebody else to do it this time (with me providing whatever support is
> needed - pairing etc.)
> 
> 
> On 16 November 2016 at 11:33, Svetoslav Neykov <svetoslav.neykov@
> cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
> 
>> Is including jclouds 2.0 too big of a change to consider, what do people
>> think?
>> If that's considered too risky then I suggest following with a 0.11.0 not
>> too long after, including jclouds 2.0.
> 
> 
> Changing the major version of any dependency sounds like a high risk
> change, but I am not involved closely in jclouds so I don't have an opinion
> on this change.
> 
> However I do like the idea of a 0.11.0 following soon after - if the 0.10.0
> sorts out any remaining gremlins in the release script and process, then a
> 0.11.0 release soon after would be a good test of a faster release cadence
> - but release cadence is a subject for a different thread :-)
> 
> Richard.


Mime
View raw message